When determining a specific road zone pursuant to Article 24 of the former Road Act, the degree of discretion held by the administrative body;

The determination of a road zone pursuant to Article 24 of the former Road Act (wholly amended by Act No. 12248, Jan. 14, 2014; hereinafter the same) is an administrative action to achieve the administrative goals, such as the development of traffic and the enhancement of public welfare through the improvement of the road network, based on the professional and technical judgment on administration, based on the professional and technical judgment on administration. The former Road Act and subordinate statutes only provide abstract administrative goals and procedures, but do not provide for the criteria or requirements for the determination of a road zone, and thus, the administrative body has a relatively broad freedom to form a road zone.

Article 24 of the former Road Act (wholly amended by Act No. 12248, Jan. 14, 2014) (see current Article 25)

Plaintiff

Head of Busan Construction Administration

Busan High Court Decision 2014Nu21271 decided December 12, 2014

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the grounds of appeal on deviation from and abuse of discretionary power

A. The determination of a road zone pursuant to Article 24 of the former Road Act (wholly amended by Act No. 12248, Jan. 14, 2014; hereinafter the same) is an administrative action aimed at achieving the administrative goals, such as the development of traffic and the enhancement of public welfare through the improvement of road networks, based on the professional and technical judgment regarding administrative affairs, based on the determination of the road zone. The former Road Act and its subordinate statutes only provide abstract administrative goals and procedures, but do not provide for the criteria or requirements for the determination of a road zone, and thus, the administrative body is relatively broad freedom in determining a road zone that constitutes the relevant route.

B. According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court below, the court below held that the decision of this case road zone cannot be deemed to have been abused and abused discretion on the ground that the Defendant’s decision of this case was unlawful solely for the purpose of reducing construction costs despite the Defendant’s construction of the road zone to avoid passing through the Plaintiff’s land, after comprehensively examining in advance traffic demand forecast and feasibility study, route consultation with relevant agencies, holding resident briefing sessions and examination of civil petitions by residents including the Plaintiff, etc., and making a decision of this case road zone. The Defendant did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on deviation and abuse of discretionary authority, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. Other grounds of appeal

Where a party has filed an application for resumption of oral argument to assert and prove after the closing of oral argument, the court may decide, at its discretion, whether to accept the application for resumption of oral argument, unless it is contrary to procedural justice pursued by the Civil Procedure Act, unless it is contrary to the case where the party who filed the application for resumption of oral argument has not been given an opportunity to assert and prove due to the reasons for which it is difficult to impose liability on him/her prior to the closing of oral argument, and the subject matter of such assertion and certification constitutes an authorized fact requiring proof that may depend on the outcome of the judgment (see Supreme Court Decision 201Da19188, Apr. 26, 2012).

Examining the records in light of the above legal principles, the court below’s decision that rejected the application for resumption of pleadings, asserting that it is necessary to reflect the environmental impact assessment report or conduct field inspection, is justifiable, and there was no error in failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations as alleged in the grounds of

In addition, the court below asserted that the plaintiff's claim was erroneous in the misapprehension of law regarding procedural defects in the decision of the road zone of this case, but the court below did not contain procedural errors in the decision of the road zone of this case on the grounds as stated in its reasoning. Thus, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kwon Soon-il (Presiding Justice)